Call for prudence in whole-genome testing.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Towards a national genomics medicine service: the challenges facing clinical-research hybrid practices and the case of the 100 000 genomes project.Journal of medical ethics · 2018
   Article
2. Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016
   Article
3. Towards a European consensus for reporting incidental findings during clinical NGS testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015
   Article
4. A protocol for the identification and validation of novel genetic causes of kidney disease.BMC nephrology · 2015
   Article
5. Incidental findings from clinical sequencing in Greece: reporting experts' attitudes.Journal of community genetics · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics.2013

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as